-->
@SkepticalOne
Again
Please link to when you’ve said this before.
Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory
Posts
Total:
1,052
-->
@Double_R
It has nothing to do with nihilism, and applies to morality just like it applies to anything else.
Nihilists literally reject the notion of morality meaning they also reject the notion of right and wrong which is what morality is about, that’s not applicable to everything.
Morality is a system by which we judge the actions of ourselves and others.
Your begging the question here, how do you adequately define those judgements we’re making?
--> @ShilaPugilists stand in the same boxing ring because fighting from different venues is pointless.
They begin fighting in different venues to gain recognition till they get to the top.
-->
@Shila
-->
@Tarik
AgainPlease link to when you’ve said this before.
I've said "again" a few times in this thread...I'm sure your browser search function could handle this request.
--> @ShilaThey begin fighting in different venues to gain recognition till they get to the top.SkepticalOne: Right...
So what is your beef? Shila is right again!!
-->
@SkepticalOne
I've said "again" a few times in this thread...I'm sure your browser search function could handle this request.
I was referring to the subject discussed that made you say again (if it wasn’t as already obvious) not just the word itself (context dude 🤦🏾♂️) let me break it down for you, you said
Again, according to your religion and your holy book, heaven
Notice the first word of that quote? Good, now I’m asking you to refer me to where you mentioned imperfection and heaven in the same sentence previously, hence why you said “again” if I’m not mistaken.
@Tarik
Philosophical Nihilists have a conceived Universal point of view.
Which does not necessarily mean that they refuse to comply with accepted social standards, especially in respect of others.
As ever you attempt to be too literal in the practical application of ideological terminology.
-->
@Tarik
-->@SkepticalOneI've said "again" a few times in this thread...I'm sure your browser search function could handle this request.I was referring to the subject discussed that made you say again (if it wasn’t as already obvious) not just the word itself (context dude 🤦🏾♂️) let me break it down for you, you saidAgain, according to your religion and your holy book, heavenNotice the first word of that quote? Good, now I’m asking you to refer me to where you mentioned imperfection and heaven in the same sentence previously, hence why you said “again” if I’m not mistaken.
SkepticalOne posted: Imperfection is the unavoidable crime of humanity and punishment is a given. This is thought to be man's natural state sans Jesus per Christianity. Jesus wouldn't make someone perfect, only forgiven. So it stands to reason, your moral standard allows immoral people to be considered righteous. Ie. Wrong can be right.
Add in to that, we can never see who meets your standard while we are alive (or ever) - it's pretty useless as a standard.
-->
@Tarik
AgainPlease link to when you’ve said this before.I've said "again" a few times in this thread...I'm sure your browser search function could handle this request.I was referring to the subject discussed that made you say again (if it wasn’t as already obvious) not just the word itself (context dude 🤦🏾♂️) let me break it down for you, you said:
Context is the point - you continually remove context in your replies. I removed no context from your reply. If context is actually important to you, then I point you to the context of this thread. Shila is following the conversation quite well:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Post 309
Nowhere in that post was anything uttered about heaven, come correct next time.
-->
@Tarik
Post 309Nowhere in that post was anything uttered about heaven, come correct next time.
Context removed yet again. I would encourage you to consider what that reply was addressing: your standard of morality (love and desire) and how that standard was justified (heaven). I specifically referenced your standard (and its justification) in that reply.
All of this obfuscation on your part does nothing to persuade or counter the post you keep avoiding.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Imperfection is the unavoidable crime of humanity and punishment is a given.
Imperfection + God = heaven
All you do is contradict yourself, in the first post you say punishment is a given for imperfection and is UNAVOIDABLE, and the latter you backpedal by saying it could be avoided through God. Make up your mind and start making sense please.
-->
@Tarik
All you do is contradict yourself, in the first post you say punishment is a given for imperfection and is UNAVOIDABLE and the latter you backpedal by saying it could be avoided through God. Make up your mind and start making sense please.
I said (according to Christianity) the crime of imperfection is unavoidable. No matter what a human may do they will always be guilty of original sin. Where is the lie?
-->
@SkepticalOne
Where is the lie?
When you called punishment unavoidable, obviously heaven is how you avoid it.
-->
@Tarik
Where is the lie?When you called punishment unavoidable, obviously heaven is how you avoid it.
I said (per Christianity) the *crime* (original sin) was unavoidable, and it is not obvious heaven exists, much less that anyone can get there.
-->
@Shila
is is moral or immoral for copyright protection to expire after 20 years ?is is moral or immoral for copyright protection to expire after 100 years ?It is practical to have an expiry date on copyright material.Generic drug makes have to wait 10 years before producing a generic copy of the original drug to allow the company to recover research and other costs.
do you apply this same logic for books and movies and music ?
-->
@SkepticalOne
I said (per Christianity) the *crime* (original sin) was unavoidable, and it is not obvious heaven exists, much less that anyone can get there.
1st of all your soliloquy also uttered punishment (you know the alternative to the place that’s not obvious anyone can get to according to you) “One only need consult the thread to validate this”. 2nd you need to keep the same energy dude, you’re clearly jumping around arguments from your position (it is not obvious heaven exists) and your perception of mine (per Christianity). Last and certainly not least, your reading comprehension is terrible, nowhere did I say anyone can get to heaven.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Heaven exists as a concept.
In so much as brain contrived and brain held data can be demonstrated verbally, or symbolically as a visual narrative.
Though the use of the word heaven has been adapted and can be variously applied.
Interestingly the word heaven is of Old English origin and postdates certain Middle Eastern folk tales by a good few hundred years.
Sin is also of Old English origin, derived from ancient Greek spear throwing terminology.
Funny how we take these things and blow them out of all proportion.
-->
@Tarik
None of your points have any relevance to the substance of my argumentation.
1. Strawman - Adjectives don't work like that. "Unavoidable" modifies "crime of humanity". There is no adjective modyfying "punishment". You'll need to address my argument rather than the strawman you've built.
2. Red Herring - I can make assumptions for the sake of argument or not.
3. Ad Hominem - my reading comprehension has nothing to do with the point you are not addressing.
-->
@SkepticalOne
You'll need to address my argument rather than the strawman you've built.
I didn’t “build” anything, you said it and once I had you in a corner chose to ignore it later, miss me with that.
Red Herring - I can make assumptions for the sake of argument or not.
Sure, but in order for your argument to be consistent you have to pick one or the other. That’s how logic works skep.
Ad Hominem - my reading comprehension has nothing to do with the point you are not addressing.
Coming from the guy that doesn’t comprehend I’ll take that as a compliment 😉.
-->
@Tarik
Nothing substantive has been provided yet again. My position stands in the wake of your fallacies. I see no reason to drag this attempt at a conversation any further. Adieu.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Nothing substantive has been provided yet again. My position stands in the wake of your fallacies. I see no reason to drag this attempt at a conversation any further. Adieu.
Odd coming from you considering you came for me, I didn’t send for you. Nonetheless this is finally something you and I can both agree on (except your fallacies argument) ✌🏾.
-->
@Tarik
Nihilists literally reject the notion of morality meaning they also reject the notion of right and wrong which is what morality is about, that’s not applicable to everything.
Nihilism is about rejecting various ideas as meaningless. We’re talking about truth and logic. These are not the same thing.
Your begging the question here, how do you adequately define those judgements we’re making?
In accordance with our moral standards. There’s nothing about this begging the question. You begin with a moral standard, you then judge actions against those standards. If they align with them then they are moral. If they conflict with them then they are immoral.
The standards are always the starting point. And the standards are chosen, subjectively, by the individual.
-->
@Double_R
Nihilism is about rejecting various ideas as meaningless. We’re talking about truth and logic. These are not the same thing.
More specifically we’re talking about morality a notion (which I’ve already stated) nihilists reject.
There’s nothing about this begging the question.
The fact that I’m practically asking you the same questions based off your response is a literal example of question begging, take for example in your latest reply you said
You begin with a moral standard, you then judge actions against those standards.
Again, what is a moral standard? You can’t include the word itself in the definition, how helpful would that be?
Humanism is compatible with atheism, and by definition usually entails at least a form of weak or agnostic atheism, and agnosticism, but being atheist or agnostic does not automatically make one a humanist.
Nor is atheism and humanism totally contradictory.
@Tarik
Nihilism is a philosophical concept derived from a philosophical concept.
The practical application of nihilism is rarely practical, if at all.
Even nihilists possess an acquired sense of morality.
Not that there is such a thing as a true nihilist.
Because true nihilists would have long since topped themselves.
-->
@zedvictor4
@TarikNihilism is a philosophical concept derived from a philosophical concept.The practical application of nihilism is rarely practical, if at all.Even nihilists possess an acquired sense of morality.Not that there is such a thing as a true nihilist.Because true nihilists would have long since topped themselves.
A nihilist understands that things will probably not get better for us as individuals any time soon. They know the world is too broken to hope for a reasonable piece of it. But a new generation of nihilistic activists have shown the capacity this has to inspire action, not apathy. Because before you can be truly motivated to reimagine a new world, you have to totally lose faith in the old one.
-->
@Double_R
The standards are always the starting point. And the standards are chosen, subjectively, by the individual.
exactly
-->
@Shila
A nihilist understands that things will probably not get better for us as individuals any time soon. They know the world is too broken to hope for a reasonable piece of it. But a new generation of nihilistic activists have shown the capacity this has to inspire action, not apathy. Because before you can be truly motivated to reimagine a new world, you have to totally lose faith in the old one.
great point